... The problem with American foreign policy goes beyond George Bush. It includes a Washington establishment that has gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement. Other countries can have no legitimate interests of their own—Russian demands are by definition unacceptable. The only way to deal with countries is by issuing a series of maximalist demands. This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world.
More at Newsweek.
Comments
1. Zakaria writes that <I>"[e]ven Richard Perle, the neoconservative guru, acknowledged recently that 'Bush mostly failed to implement an effective foreign and defense policy."</I> Zakaria plucked that quote from <a href="http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20486">this piece</a> in <U>The National Interest</U>, apparently oblivious to the context. That piece, titled "Ambushed on the Potomac" was Perles assessment of the Bush administrations inability to overcome the institutional inertia of the State Departments entrenched bureaucrats. In other words, President Bush attempted, but the State Department resisted. There is a world of difference between failures directly resulting from his policies being implemented and failures a resulting from his policies <U>not</U> being implemented. Zakaria seems to assume the former when he echoes the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR20090… assertion</a> that President Bushs <I>"characteristic failing was to apply a black-and-white mindset to too many gray areas of national security and foreign affairs."</I> Ironically, Zakaria, in the final paragraph quoted in this blog, complains about the State Departments unwillingness to change and embrace the views of the new administration. Hello?
2. Zakaria points out that President Obama has made "striking moves in foreign policy," such as announcing the closure of Gitmo (its still open) and giving his first interview to al-Arabiya, which earned him "rave reviews." Does Zakaria think that the decision by President Bush to not close down Gitmo was anything other than both a delaying action to buy more time for our lawyers and a softball for the incoming administration to hit of the park? And why is it significant that President Obama gets "rave reviews" for a fleeting moment of good will in the Mideast? Is that interview going to accomplish anything long term? Or is it in any way being built upon? If not, then why is it significant? I watch al-Jazeera regularly. One commercial features a photo of President Obama wearing a yamaka, clearly for the purpose of painting him as a "Zionist" or being "pro-Israel" and, by extension, just another anti-Arab westerner. So much for good will.
3. Zakaria goes on to list an apparently newfound desire to engage with <a href=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/03/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Syria.php>…;, <a href=http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/09/world/fg-irantalks9>Iran</a>, <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR20060…;, <a href=http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/us-china/>China</a>, and <a href=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/10/gates.taliban/index.html>the Taliban</a>. Click on the links that I provided for each country and please explain how this administrations policy differs significantly from the previous one.
4. In light of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR20090… criticism</a> of the administrations actions towards Pakistan, Zakaria criticizes Krauthammer for overlooking "the many deals that Pakistan struck over the last three years--during Bush's reign--with the Taliban." The problem is that Zakaria makes the same oversight in glorifying President Obama. See #3, above. He even goes on to write, mockingly, "Ah, if we just kept in place all those Bush-era policies that were working so well." Is he this blind to his own irony? The Krauthammer op-ed is ripe for legitimate criticism, but Zakaria opted instead for this bizarre rebuttal.
5. Zakaria hails the wisdom of President Obama in using the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic as a bargaining chip in winning Russian cooperation with Iran. Who does he think handed that bargaining chip to President Obama?
6. There was lots of talk about the graciousness of President Bush in his handover to President Obama. Have any of those commenters taken more than a moment to consider that two Bush-era initiatives were part of that smooth transition, such as the refusal to close down Gitmo, even in the face of withering domestic and international public outcry (see #2, above), and pushing forward with expansion and development of missile defense (see #5, above)? Continuing with UAV attacks into Pakistan right up until inauguration day and a likely USSF and/or CIA incursion into Syria seem like two other possible candidates.